Find patches for a CVE

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses live linux-cip mirror queries, backport commit and first tagged CIP release resolution, and graceful degradation to record-derived candidates (R1/R2/R4). It omits permissions and rate limits but is otherwise unusually transparent.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two dense sentences are front-loaded with the action and provenance chain, then the mirror/fallback behavior. The R1/R2/R4 jargon may require external context, but there is little wasted text.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a finder tool with no annotations or output schema, the description explains provenance and fallback behavior and hints at return fields (backport commit, first tagged CIP release). However, it leaves cveId format and the full return shape implicit, which are meaningful gaps.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0% for the single required cveId parameter, and the description only says 'for a CVE' without adding format, constraints, or examples beyond the schema pattern. It does not compensate for the missing schema documentation.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb (Locate) and resource (existing fixes/patch commits) for a CVE, and adds the provenance chain from mainline through stable to CIP branches. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like draft_backport, but the purpose is clear.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives no when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or alternatives. Its fallback statement describes behavior, not when to choose this tool over query_cve or cve_applicability.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.